'EREB B ~ Q E ROF DAN 8:14 RE-EXAMINED

S. J. SCHWANTES
Seminaire Adventiste du Salkve
Collonges-sous-Salkve, France

The expression 'ereh baqer of Dan 8:14 is interpreted in the

current literature as a reference to the morning and evening
sacrifices offered daily in the Temple. The omission of 2300 such
sacrifices would correspond to 1150 days, the interval of time
during which the services in the Temple were suspended follow-
ing the profanation of temple and altar by Antiochus Epiphanes.
This interpretation has become practically normative, so that
modern scholars seldom take time to examine it critically.
Thus, for instance, A. Bentzen states: "2300 'evenings-morn-
ings,' namely 1150 days, this peculiar way of indicating the time
being explained by the fact that the total number of tamld-
sacrifices omitted is given; since every morning and evening of
every day a tamid was offered, the omission of 2300 such sacrifices
signifies 1150 days."' Bentzen adds the interesting observation
that this interpretation dates back to Ephraem Syrus. The same
explanation is repeated uncritically by most of the more recent
commentator^.^
Two observations should be made here. First, none of these
modern commentators questions the correctness of the assumption
that tcimg means each of the daily sacrifices, the morning one
and the evening one. Second, the reason proposed by some com-
mentators for the strange fact that "evening precedes "morning"
in Dan 8:14 is not tenable in the light of biblical usage.
A. Bentzen, Daniel (Tubingen, 1972), p. 71.
J. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh, 1927), p. 343; Jean Stein-
mann, Daniel (Paris, 1950), p. 124; N. W. Porteous, Das Danielbuclt (Got-
tingen, 1962), p. 104; 0. Ploger, Das Auch Daniel (Giitersloh, 1965), p. 127;
M. Delcor, Le livre de Daniel (Paris, 1971), p. 177; Andre Lacocque, Le 1 b - e
de Daniel (Paris, 1976), p. 49.
376 S. J. SCHWANTES

In an examination of the first assumption, namely that tamid

may refer to each of the daily sacrifices taken separately, it
deserves notice that the word timid is not employed as a noun
by itself except in the book of Daniel: 8: 11, 12, 13; 11:31; 12:11.
In the rest of the OT the word is often used as an adverb in the
sense of "continually" or "daily," or as an adjective meaning
"continual," "perpetual," "regular," etc. It is employed 26 times
in a construct relation to qualify nouns such as "burnt offering,"
"meal offering," "fire," "show-bread," "feast," "allowance," and the
like. Because timid is used most often to qualify burnt offering
or sacrifice, the word "sacrifice" has been supplied by different
translators to complete the sense of the elliptical tarnid in the
five texts of Daniel. The LXX has simply translated tamid by
Bvoia in these passages. But since the word was used to qualify
other aspects of the service of the Temple besides sacrifices,
one might be entitled to supply the word "service" instead of
"sacrifice7' in the same texts. When the sanctuary was overthrown
by the activity of the "little horn," not only the sacrifices ceased
to be offered, but the totality of the services of the Temple ceased
as well.
But even if the word "sacrifice" be supplied in the different
texts of Daniel where the word timid occurs, it should be
observed that tarnid is a technical term in the language of the
ritual to designate the double burnt offering of the morning
and the evening which should be offered daily. The legislation
of Exod 29:38-42 is very precise. After presenting the detailed
prescription for the daily offering of two lambs a year old with-
out blemish, vs. 42 sums up the whole instruction by saying: "It
shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations.
. . . " The Hebrew text brings out the point even more clearly:
bYnll? 'T'Dn h?y. It is evident that the double offering of the
morning and the evening formed one unit contained in the ex-

The parallel text of Num 28:3-6 points to the same technical

 'EREBB'T~QEROF DAN 8 :14 377

use of the term: "two male lambs a year old without blemish,
day by day, as a continual7' offering (vs. 3#),where the Hebrew
text reads, T D ~T r / Y , probably to be corrected to VM my.3 The
preceding instruction is summed up as follows (vs. 6 ) : "It is a
continual burnt offering . . . ," repeating the technical term 'd&
tiimld. It is clear that in the language of the cult the morning
and evening offerings constituted one "continual burnt offering."
In the remaining verses of Num 28 and in chap. 29 one may
read a summary of all the sacrifices to be offered throughout the
religious year: those of the Sabbath (28:9, 101); of the new
moon ( vss. 11-15) ; of the seven days of the feast of unleavened
bread which followed the celebration of the passover on the 14th
of Nisan (vss. 16-25); of the day of the first-fruits (vss. 26-31);
of the first day of the seventh month (29:l-6); of the tenth day
of the same month (vss. 7-11); and of the eight days of the feast
of tabernacles (vss. 12-38).In all cases the special sacrifices were
to be offered "besides the continual burnt offering" (28:9, 15,
23, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38), altogether fourteen
times. Regardless of the number of sacrifices to be offered on
festal occasions the '6ht tarnid could never be suspended. It is
also clear from the context that by 'b& tiimid the double burnt
offering of the morning and evening is meant, the only exception
being found in Num 28:23: "You shall offer these besides the
burnt offering of the morning which is for a continual burnt
offering." A careful study of this last passage indicates that the
M T is probably disturbed, and that the copyist after writing
'dl& habhdqer, tried to correct the mistake by adding 'L"slerle'6lat
hattriml& of the regular formula. This lone exception does
not invalidate the rule that in this long text, '6@ tiimfd means
technically the double burnt offering of the morning and evening.
Our contention that the tiimkj stands for the daily double
burnt offering of the morning and evening seems at first sight
to be contradicted by Ezek 46:14, 15: "Thus the lamb and the
Cf. R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica, 3d ed.
378 S. J. SCHWANTES

meal offering and the oil shall be provided, morning by morning,

for a continual burnt offering." This would be a major objection
if it could be shown that Ezekiel's cultic ordinances found in
chaps. 45 and 46 were meant to be detailed and exhaustive,
rather than a simple outline of the essential features of the new
order he envisaged.
John Skinner, G . A. Cooke and Georg Fohrer take the text
to indicate that Ezekiel knew nothing of an evening burnt offer-
ing.' The standard argument is that in the pre-exilic period
there was only a morning '&!ahand an evening rnhhah. This is
supposed to be supported by the fact that King Ahaz commanded
Uriah the priest, saying: "Upon the great altar burn the morning
burnt offering, and the evening cereal offering . . ." ( 2 Kgs 16: 15).
On the other hand, there are scholars who have understood
Ezekiel's cultic instructions as a mere outline of the temple service
and not as a detailed prescription. Thus, Johannes Pedersen in
commenting on Ezek 45:13-17 calls attention to the omission of
two important items from the list of offerings to be made, and he
offers the following explanation:
It is probably merely on account of the incompleteness of the
plan that wine and cattle are not mentioned. This must also be
the reason why no daily offering is referred to other than that
of the prince: a lamb for a burnt-offering every morning with
an offering of agricultural produce and oil. . . . We possess
plenty of evidence that the daily afternoon sacrifice was, indeed,
preserved in post-exilic times;"

Likewise, W. Zimmerli in his recent commentary expresses

the opinion that the instruction of Ezek 46:13-15 is a summary
rather than a complete blueprint for the sacrificial service:
In view of the fact that in the pre-exilic period the morning
and evening offerings were already known, it is not probabIe
that Ez. 46:15 means to reduce the full service. Probably its editor
was obliged, by the revision of verses 13 and following and by

John Skinner, T h e Book of Ezekiel (New York, 1905), pp. 472, 473; G. A.
Cooke, T h e Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh, 1936), p. 511; Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel
(Tiibingen, 1955), p. 256.
J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 3/4 (London, 1940): 352.
 'EREB B ~ Q E RO F DAN 8 :14

the combination of both offerings into one, to concentrate all

in the morning tZm@ and to describe only the morning tdmz^d.6

That Ezekiel's ritual prescriptions are no more than an outline

is also evident from the reference to the celebration of the
passover in 45:21. This statement cannot be taken as anything
but the barest reference to a well-known ritual of long standing.
Josiah is said to have celebrated the passover with all solemnity
in the 18th year of his reign ( 2 Kgs 23:21-23).7 It should be
borne in mind that in most cases Ezekiel was not innovating,
but standardizing ancient practices according to an ideal plan.
Moreover, it should be observed that the text of 2 Kgs 16:15
does not rule out the possibility that an evening burnt offering
was offered as well. The text makes reference to "the king's burnt
offering, and his cereal offering," as well as to "the burnt offering
of all the people of the land, and their cereal offering, and their
libation." From this it is evident that there was more to the daily
service even in the days of Ahaz than "the morning burnt offer-
ing, and the evening cereal offering." The comments of the proph-
et Isaiah, a contemporary of Ahaz, on the ceremonialism of the
day leave the distinct impression that the number of sacrifices
offered in the temple in his time was enormous (Isa 1:11-13).8
There was no lack of ceremonial zeal, but a crying absence of
morality and rationality in the religion as then practiced.
No final opinion can be expressed on the validity of the argu-
ment based on 2 Kgs 16:15 before the term minhEh is clearly
defined.
N. H. Snaith has expressed the opinion that in the course of
time minhtih acquired the narrow sense of "gift of grain (cereal),"
but that it could also have retained the original meaning of
"tribute, gift." He argues that "because of this, it could be used
in a wider sense, namely, that of the whole cerem~ny."~ As an
'W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (Neukirchen, 1969), p. 1175.
For the ancient origin of the passover, see R. de Vaux, Les sacrifices de
I'Ancien Testament (Paris, 1964), p. 22.
Cf. the remarks of Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, in Mic 6:6-8.
N. H. Snaith, "Sacrifices in the Old Testament," V T 7 (1957): 315.
380 S . J. SCHWANTES

example of this wider sense, Snaith refers to the 'dat hamminhiih

of 1Kgs 18:29, 36, evidently offered in the evening, and to the
'dlat hamminhdh of 2 Kgs 3:20, obviously offered in the morning.
He goes on to say that "the two ceremonies referred to are the
Tamid, Ex. 29:38ff., Num. 28:3ff."
It seems reasonable to suppose that the minhiih of 2 Kgs 3:20,
offered in the morning, included the standard burnt offering.
On the other hand, the min&h alluded to in 2 Kgs 18:29, 36
certainly included, among other things, the burnt offering made
that evening by Elijah himself on top of Mount Carmel. If this
wider sense of minhiih is allowed in 2 Kgs 16:15, then there is
no reason to rule out the possibility that an evening burnt
offering might have been included in the total ceremony known
as the minhiih.
We have assumed, and we believe correctly, that the term
tiimid of Dan 8 signifies the double sacrificial ceremony of the
morning and the evening. The previous paragraphs have shown
that this assumption is not invalidated by Ezek 46:15, nor by the
often-quoted text of 2 Kgs 16:15.1°
The evidence furnished by the texts of Exod 29 and Num
28 and 29, which are fundamental to any discussion of the
meaning of tiimid, should caution the impartial exegete from any
hasty assumption that hattdmid in Daniel did designate each
sacrifice by itself, as if the sacrifices of the morning and evening
were two independent units. The text of Ezra 3:3-5 is particularly
significant in this discussion. After speaking of the restoration of
the altar and the presentation of "burnt-offerings morning and
evening," vs. 5 sums up the daily burnt offering of the morning
and the evening under the expression 'dat tdrnia, evidently a
singular.
Moreover, one should observe that the word tiimid itself is
not found in Dan 8:14. It is simply assumed on account of the
lo As for the mention of ttitnid in Ezek 46: 14, Zimmerli, p. 1168, explains

it as an intrusion from vs. 15.

 'EREB B ~ Q E ROF DAN 8 :14 381

references to it in vss. 11-13. But the assumption that the formula

'ereh baqer is the equivalent to hatt8mid of the preceding verses
ignores another fundamental fact of the language of the cult,
namely that in the description of the daily sacrifices "morning"
always precedes "evening."
0. Ploger, for example, commenting on Dan 8:14, follows
countless predecessors when he writes: "Since the sacrifice was
offered in the evening and in the morning, this would signify an
interval of 1150 days."ll But it should be observed that the
language of the ritual always designates the morning sacrifice
before the one of the evening, without exception. A survey of
the OT produces the following illustrations: Exod 29:39; Lev
6:13; Num 28:4; 2 Kgs 16:15; 1 Chr 16:40; 23:30; 2 Chr 2:4;
13:ll; 31:3; Ezra 3:3. "Burnt offerings morning and evening7'
becomes a stereotyped phrase which finds no exception in the
biblical literature. It is also perpetuated in the post-biblical
period, as e.g. in 1 Esdr 5:50: ". . . and they offered sacrifices
according to the time, and burnt-offerings to the Lord both morn-
ing and evening."12
The expression &ereh <&-bdqer is used in Lev 24:3, but this
is in reference to the time when the lamps should burn in the
sanctuary. The reason for the sequence evening-morning in this
particular instance is obvious. The lights should burn during
the night and not during the day. Commenting on the daily
ceremonies of the temple, J. B. Segal remarks that "the daily
ritual of the temple followed the routine of every-day life,
beginning in the morning and finishing in the evening.'13
UP1oger, p. 127. However, Porteous, p. 104, is careful to observe the
order morning-evening: "wahrend dieses Zeitabschnittes ware das tumid-
Opfer 2300mal am Morgen oder Abend dargebracht worden."
= A P O T , 1: 39. According to R. H. Charles, the date of Esdras would be
"the late Greek age." The expression 6 A o ~ a v r 3 p a r a7 @ m p i y ~b ~ p ~ i v b~v a d~
i
GEtXtvdv of 1 Esdr 5:49 in LXX contains no new technical terms, as Mont-
gomery, p. 343, suggests, but simply repeats the terms already employed in
Exod 29:39 LXX.
J. B. Segal, "Intercalation and the Hebrew Calendar," V T 7 (1957): 254.
382 S. J. SCHWANTES

It is alleged by some scholars that the inverted order of the

expression 'ereb b6qer of Dan 8:14 reflects the use of a new
calendar adopted by the Israelites in their first contact with
Babylonian civilization. According to R. de Vaux, e.g., the intro-
duction of the Babylonian lunar calendar provoked a change in
the old Israelite way of reckoning the day.14 Whereas before the
exile the usual order had been morning-evening, in the postexilic
period the order evening-morning became the normal one. The
present writer has shown in another study that de Vaux's argu-
ment based on the use of the formula "day and night" is untenable
in the light of the evidence offered by the Babylonian literature.15
It is generally recognized that in Mesopotamia the day was
reckoned from evening to evening, which is usually the case where
a lunar calendar is observed.16 Consequently one would expect,
if de Vaux were right, that in the Babylonian literature the
expression "night and day" would be much more common than
its inverse "day and night." But a methodical count in the Epic
of Gilgamesh, the Sumerian prototype of the Deluge, Inana's
Descent to the Nether World, and the Epic of Creation showed
a preponderance of the formula "day and night" over "night and
day" in the ratio of 4:1.17

14R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York, 1961),
p. 181.
=S. J. Schwantes, "Did the Israelites Ever Reckon the Day from Morning to
Morning?," The Ministry, July, 1977, pp. 36-39.
lGSee 0.Neugebauer, T h e Exact Sciences in Antiquity (Harper Torch-
book ed.; New York, 1962), p. 106; A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Baby-
lonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Providence, R.I., 1956), p. 26; Jack
Finegan, Handbook of Bible CIzronology (Princeton, N.J., 1964), p. 8; E. J.
Bickermann, Chronology of the Ancient World (London, 1968), pp. 13-14.
l7 For the formula "day and night," see Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet I, 2.24,

4.21, 5.19 (ANET, pp. 74-75); the Old Babylonian Version of Tablets 11, 2.6
(ANET, p. 77) and X, 2.5, 8 (ANET, pp. 89-90); the Assyrian Version of Tab-
let XI, lines 126 and 199 (ANET, pp. 94-95); the Sumerian prototype of the
Deluge, line 203 (ANET, p. 44); the Sumerian myth of Inana's descent to the
Nether World, line 169 (ANET, p. 55); the Creation Epic, Tablet I, line 50
(ANET, p. 61). For the formula "night and day," see the Creation Epic,
Tablet I, line 129, and Tablet 111, lines 19 and 78 (ANET, pp. 62, 64-65).
 'EREE B ~ Q E RO F DAN 8:14 383

It is obvious from this cursory survey of Babylonian literature

that there is no correlation between the type of calendar used
and the use of the formula "day and night" or its inverse. The
universal preference for the formula "day and night" reflects, as
Segal remarks, "the ordinary course of human behaviour. I t is
at dawn that man begins the active work of the day, and, for
that reason, a phrase current in man's mouth is 'day and night.' "I8
I t is not surprising, then, that the formula "day and night"
is much more commonly attested than "night and day" in the
pre-exilic biblical literature, regardless of the type of calendar
used. And for the same reason it continues to be more common
in the post-exilic books as well. Thus Nehemiah continues to
pray "day and night" (Neh 1:6). In his time a guard is set as
protection against the enemy "day and nighty7( Neh 4:9). The
Siracide, writing early in the 2d century B.c., still says from
"morning to evening" ( Sir 18:26). Judas Maccabaeus ordered
the people to call upon the Lord "day and night" (2 Macc 13:10).
Judith is reported as serving the God of heaven "day and night"
( Jdt 11:17) . The stereotyped formula continues to be used right
down to the beginning of the Christian era, as shown by the
literature of Qumran.lg
The language of the NT points in the same direction, namely
that the use of the stereotyped expression "day and night,'' or its
inverse, bears no relation to the way of reckoning the day.
Thus in the NT the formula nuktos kai hemeras is used eight
times (Acts 20:31; Rom 13:12; 2 Cor 11:25; 1 Thess 2:9; 3:10;
2 Thess 3:8; 1 Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3), whereas the inverse
hEmeras kai nuktos is used ten times (Matt 4:2; 12:40; Luke
18:7; Acts 9%; 26:7; Rev S:8; 7:lS; 12:lO; 14:ll; 20:10).
Also, in many passages of the Talmud the expression "day and
night7' is employed, as pointed out by C. H. B ~ r e n s t e i n .And
~~
Segal, p. 254.
'"1 QM 14:13; see J. van der Ploeg, "La rtgle d e la guerre: Traduction et
notes," VT 5 (1955): 389, 415.
aO Quoted by S, Zeitlin, "The Beginning of the Jewish Day," JQR 36 (1945-
384 S. J. SCHWANTES

there seems to be little correlation between language and calen-

drical or astronomical sophistication even in our times.
The evidence pointed out above shows that the expression
'ere4 baqer of Dan 8:14 could not be derived from the language
of the cult, where the order morning-evening is the standard one
at all times. There is no evidence whatsoever that the cultic
formula for the "morning and evening" sacrifices was changed
during the captivity or in the subsequent period. This being
the case, the provenance of the expression 'ereh bdqer must be
sought elsewhere than in the language of the cult. It is inadmis-
sible that a writer as familiar with the cultic jargon as the author
of the book of Daniel would commit so gross an error.
It is the contention of the present writer that the unusual
expression ereb bdqer must be sought in the lapidar language
of Gen 1. There the standard expression 373+ifr> SV0'it'7
is used for each day of the creation narrative (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19,
23, 31). R. de Vaux is right in calling attention to the fact that
in Gen 1 'ereh marks the end of the creative acts accomplished
during the day, and bdqer the end of the night of reste21It seems
reasonable that in describing the days of creation the accent
is placed on the creative activity which takes place during the
light part of the day, rather than on the night of rest.
Be that as it may, the f a d remains that this manner of
designating a complete day is found nowhere in the OT except
in Dan 8:14,26. The standard practice is to designate the 24-hour
day by the formula "day and night," or, much less frequently,
46): 410. I t should be noted that Zeitlin favors the hypothesis that the
Israelites reckoned the day from morning to morning in pre-exilic times.
21De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 181. De Vaux uses the order 7P3 ... 27y
as an argument in favor of the hypothesis that in pre-exilic times the day
was reckoned from morning to morning. G. von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia,
1961), p. 51, draws the same conclusion: "The day here appears to he reckoned
from morning to morning, in strange contrast to its reckoning in the cultic
law." I t should be said, though, that Gen 1 was not written with the purpose
of recognizing or establishing any particular calendar or method of reckoning
the day. For a different view, see E. A. Speiser, Genesis (Garden City, N.Y.,
1964), p. 5.
 'EREB B ~ Q E RO F DAN 8:14 385

by its inverse "night and day." It follows that if the author of the
book of Daniel borrowed the phrase 'ereb bdqer from Gen 1, as
the evidence seems to substantiate, then its meaning points not
to half days, as has often been assumed uncritically, but to
full days.
K. Marti claims that the expression 'ereh bdqer of Dan 8:14
is to be understood according to the parallel expression of Dan
8:26, where the existence of the conjunction we between the two
nouns indicates that 'ereb bdqer of 8:14 should not be taken as a
unit of 24 hours.22 Marti's conclusion is open to question, since
the very fact that 'ereb bijqer, with or without we, stands in the
singular is evidence that the expression represents a unit of time,
namely one full day. Thus the LXX and Theodotion have under-
stood it by adding hgmerai to the text. Elsewhere in the book of
Daniel the days, weeks, or years counted are always in the plural
and precede the numeral. Thus in the Hebrew portion of the
book we find, SBnim 3 ( 1: 5 ); yamim 10 ( 1:12, 14 ) ; Bcihu'im 70,
7 , 62 (9:24, 25, 26); ycimim 1290 ( 1 2 : l l ) ; ylimim 1335 (12:12).
In contrast, the formula 'ereb b6qer stands in the singular, like
French up&-midi, which is also invariable.
The very fact that the expression breh bdqer stands excep-
tionally in the singular in contrast to all other enumerations in the
book, favors the view that it represents a unit of time. If one
also recognizes that the expression 'ereb bdqer could not have
been borrowed from the language of the cult, but was most
likely modeled after the phraseology of Gen 1, then the conclu-
sion that it stands for one full day is practically unavoidable.

* K. Marti, Das Buch Daniel (Tiibingen, 1901), p. 60.